Who do you side with in the NFL labor talks?

• gorocks99

  

  A complex issue, too many issues to list here (and I'm lazy) ... but generally, do you side more with the players or the owners in this situation?
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Not sure how you could be on the owners side when they're hoarding money away and then asking for another billion off the top without opening their books to explain why they need it.
• Con_Alma

  Owners for me.
  
  The must walk lightly however.
• ytownfootball

  

  Just the fact that the owners were hiding/keeping from, the NFLPA the TV revenue means they have a lot more to hide, so I side with the players. They're overpaid entertainers, but the owners make a lot more than they are willing to report and don't need an extra billion to continue.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Looking at it in the most general sense, I side with the owners. They own the teams and offer a great product, however at the same time I understand that the product is/are the players.
  
  I don't know the ins and outs, but to me, it really seems like each side could just give a little and this whole issue is resolved.
  
  With that said, the owners can survive longer without football than the players can, so I imagine the players end up bending first.
• 2kool4skool

  

  Players. When compared to every other pro sport, the NFL players are getting the shaft. They play in the(by far) most profitable league, yet make the least money. They play in the sport that results in(by far) the most life-altering injuries, yet have the least guaranteed contracts.
  
  If there ends up being a lengthy lockout, Goodell has to go down as one of the worst commissioners in pro sports history. Everyone is making money hand over fist, and a lockout would derail the momentum the NFL had built.
• Mulva

  

  The players, just because of how contradictory the 'player safety' and '18 game regular season' arguments are.
• thavoice

  I can see both sides of it really. PLayers are what entertain us, make us go to the games, but they come and go. The owners are typically the ones there through it all and once every single one of the current players are done and retired....there will still be a league. There will still be stars. There will still be teams, playoffs, sellout stadiums, super bowls, etc etc etc.
  
  The players run the league, but they are 'here today, gone tomorrow' and many times in life the owners of any business should be the ones that ultimately make the most money.
  
  
  If I had to vote...i would say owners.
• bases_loaded

  

  Without the owners there is no league, without the league there is no need for players.
• thavoice

  bases_loaded;698609 wrote:Without the owners there is no league, without the league there is no need for players.

  and without players there would be no league.
  
  We can look at it this way too.....where you work.......are employees surprised thta the owner makes more money then an individual employee? When that employee is gone, that owner is still there as the head of the company. We may sit back and say "hey, we are the one doing the work to make the money. We are selling the goods, fixing the cars, managing the stores, doing what the public sees to make money".
  
  Same in the NFL.......all the time we hear a normal union fighting for more money, benefits etc for the employees and the owners or whatnot doing what they can to retain the money they earned.
  
  IN the end both sides have valid points but I tend to lean toward the owners in most instances.
• OneBuckeye

  

  2kool4skool;698519 wrote:Players. When compared to every other pro sport, the NFL players are getting the shaft. They play in the(by far) most profitable league, yet make the least money. They play in the sport that results in(by far) the most life-altering injuries, yet have the least guaranteed contracts.

  I agree... I realize the owners need to make good money to operate but NFL players sacrafice more than NBA or MLB players health wise, and they aren't gaurenteed anything. They don't have to play the sport, but comparing them to other pro athletes they have gotten the shortest straw. Given that, they are still loaded and should be happy to be able to make millions of dollars playing a sport they love.
• thavoice

  True..they dont get the big guarenteed contracts. That is H U G E!
  
  There are 53 man rosters, over double the MLB roster (only 13 more than the 40 man though) and I dont know how many over NBA. Plus, they play 16 games. Yes, less physically demanding than other sports as well
  
  Does non guarenteed contracts help guard against players who just mail it in? Face it..we complain about the big time, guarenteed contracts in MLB. Guy signs huge deal...he sucks...and your screwed. In NFL...guy signs huge contract...he gets lazy, starts to suck....ya can can him and he knows that.
  
  Does it help keep players from getting a bit more complacent than other leagues?
• OneBuckeye

  

  thavoice;698618 wrote:True..they dont get the big guarenteed contracts. That is H U G E!
  
  There are 53 man rosters, over double the MLB roster (only 13 more than the 40 man though) and I dont know how many over NBA. Plus, they play 16 games. Yes, less physically demanding than other sports as well
  
  Does non guarenteed contracts help guard against players who just mail it in? Face it..we complain about the big time, guarenteed contracts in MLB. Guy signs huge deal...he sucks...and your screwed. In NFL...guy signs huge contract...he gets lazy, starts to suck....ya can can him and he knows that.
  
  Does it help keep players from getting a bit more complacent than other leagues?

  I agree, and I don't think the contracts should be gaurenteed in any sport. However the NFL i may not mind that because you get guys with huge medical issues in retirement from the punishment they took while they were in the league. I think the NFL needs to have a better plan for retired players medical wise then I would be ok with it. For example say you are an undrafted player and you make the team, play for half a year and get a serious injury or several concussions, you get cut and you could be left with a serious medical condition or ailments the rest of your life and you never got all the money you were going to because you got cut. I am not sure how this works in the NFL, but if I was a player i'd be concerned with.
• thedynasty1998

  

  I understand the whole medical issue side, but these guys voluntarily pick this profession, as do minors, cops, boxers, and the guys on Deadliest Catch. You could pick hundreds of occupations that have risks that are ignored. The NFL players are paid well to do what they do, and yes, that includes punishing their own bodies. If they don't think it's worth it, they can go sit behind a desk.
  
  I really do understand the players wanting more, but I don't think they get it and it's the owners who built the NFL into what it is today. The NFL wasn't always as profitable, but the commissioner, executives and owners did a good job of marketing their product and making it accessible. They deserve more credit than they are receiving.
• Pick6

  

  personally dont really care. get the shit worked out because i'd like to watch football in the fall.
• thavoice

  OneBuckeye;698631 wrote:I agree, and I don't think the contracts should be gaurenteed in any sport. However the NFL i may not mind that because you get guys with huge medical issues in retirement from the punishment they took while they were in the league. I think the NFL needs to have a better plan for retired players medical wise then I would be ok with it. For example say you are an undrafted player and you make the team, play for half a year and get a serious injury or several concussions, you get cut and you could be left with a serious medical condition or ailments the rest of your life and you never got all the money you were going to because you got cut. I am not sure how this works in the NFL, but if I was a player i'd be concerned with.

  
  and health coverage is big in this negotiation..
• sleeper

  

  I'd really like to see the players get guaranteed contracts.
  
  But I also think the players are overpaid, and their constant whining needs to be punished. You play football for millions stop the QQ.
• september63

  

  Both sides agree to a 24 hr extension. Might they actually be making progress?
• mallymal614

  Players
  
  They are the ones who are always told that they make too much money and are greedy. But never one ever talks about how much the owners make and how greedy they are.
• HitsRus

  

  Owners.
  No matter what, the owners are going to take what they need/want. That is the perogative of ownership in everything. If you aren't getting that as an owner then you go out of business or you sell.
  Hence, whatever 'extra' the players get, raises the cost of the product which will be passed on to us who buy it. The owners are going to make what they want/need to make regardless.
  The more the players make, the more I'm going to pay.
  You could make an argument that of all the sports, the NFL players get the least/have the worst deal.....but that is only a matter of comparison and degree. Most of these guys make in one year what it takes some of us 10 or 20 years.
• friendfromlowry

  I haven't paid too much attention to formulate an opinion, but the one thing that always bothered me is how much money the rookies get...taking tens of millions of dollars and never even played an NFL snap.
  It gets worse when draft pick #6 wants a little less than #5 but more than #7.
• Skyhook79

  

  The players are currently getting 60% of the pie. What other employee in the "real" world gets anything close to that?...and I realize the players are the reason the fans come to the games.
  They can give up some things imo.
• OQB

  

  This is very interesting to me....
  
  On one hand I am on the Owner's side because I do not want the NFL to be like MLB....the MLBPA is out of control and that is why we see these Huge contracts that most of us can't even fathom....I want 30 million a year not 25 mil...who gives a crap! I think that is why you see Pujols not signing with the Cardinals because the union is forcing him to get that huge contract. MLB is out of control!
  
  On the other hand I am on the players side because football is by far the worst sport contact-wise...and their health benefits and the way the NFL treats them is just ridiculous..I also think if the NFL wants an 18 game schedule than they need to compensate the players for those 2 extra games....It would be like us working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40, I think ALL of us would be pissed about that. But as some have noted, the players already get 60% of the pie and that is far more than any other job out there....
  
  I say both sides of the ignorant and greedy people need to come together and do what is right for the game of football.
• bases_loaded

  

  thavoice;698612 wrote:and without players there would be no league.
  
  We can look at it this way too.....where you work.......are employees surprised thta the owner makes more money then an individual employee? When that employee is gone, that owner is still there as the head of the company. We may sit back and say "hey, we are the one doing the work to make the money. We are selling the goods, fixing the cars, managing the stores, doing what the public sees to make money".
  
  Same in the NFL.......all the time we hear a normal union fighting for more money, benefits etc for the employees and the owners or whatnot doing what they can to retain the money they earned.
  
  IN the end both sides have valid points but I tend to lean toward the owners in most instances.

  
  No you can't look at it that way because someone will fill their job for much less than they are making now. Football is a loved sport and people love watching it. The players have the privilege to play a GAME for a large sum of money because OWNERS allow them to. Without OWNERS there are no teams, without teams there is no NFL. Without the NFLPA there are still players that can fill the teams and people will still tune in to watch it.
• ytownfootball

  

  bases_loaded;699106 wrote:No you can't look at it that way because someone will fill their job for much less than they are making now. Football is a loved sport and people love watching it. The players have the privilege to play a GAME for a large sum of money because OWNERS allow them to. Without OWNERS there are no teams, without teams there is no NFL. Without the NFLPA there are still players that can fill the teams and people will still tune in to watch it.

  Not at a profit.